This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gold-containing drugs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The page is slightly redundant with gold treatment, although the material here is much better on sources. I have done some copyediting.
I removed the paragraph on autism. There are no systematic programs investigating the use of gold in detoxifying from thimerosal. All is based on isolated case reports (and some reporting by Dan Olmsted, of course, the autism journalist extraordinaire), and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Dan can be proud: gold salts work [1]. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the use of gold salts in autism as presented in the article is based mainly on anecdotal experiences and speculation. The I-had-one-patient-who-responded argument may work in the casual setting (or an infomercial for that matter), but I think we need to apply more rigor in Wikipedia. Andrew73 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Predictably, the "long version" of the autism material was reinserted. WP:NPOV speaks about undue weight ( WP:NPOVUW). I think that the rheumatoid arthritis use, numbering millions worthwide, should be given more prominence than the experiences of one controversional researcher on a handful of patients. When I copyedited the article I reduced the paragraph to:
This is all that can actually be said about this. The anecdotal report is many decades ago and has not been duplicated. I urge Ombudsman to adhere to policy. JFW | T@lk 08:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
All this is lecturing and opinion, and your tone is quite annoying; I am not "the medical authorities" and I do actually exhibit curiosity. Shortening your excessive material on autism is not a "sin of omission" but an attempt to restore balance.
I did not say that JRA is treated with gold; all I said was that millions of people have, through the years, been treated with gold. That cannot be said about autism. JFW | T@lk 12:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Ombudsman has reverted to his preferred version. I will not address the moralistic lecturing and the substantial WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL issues in his reply above. I have now requested RFC.
For non-medical readers: gold salts have been used for some forms of arthritis for decades, on 100,000s of patients worldwide. Last year a journalist with an interest in autism discovered that a young autism patient improved mentally when his coincidental arthritis was treated with gold salts. A researcher with an interest in mercury has suggested that it may work. Nobody has tried, and animal studies have only just started.
I think that the present (long) version of the autism paragraph constitutes "undue weight" and would like to hear the community's opinion on this. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I read the request for comments. I read the page, and it does strike me that the pice on authism is primarily ananecdotal, which sounds to me more as a POV than anything substantial (aka, sources needed to substantiate claim, if not, one sentence will do the whiole job of announcing that goldsalts maybe are benificual for authism). Furthermore, this is not something that should be listed under Gold salts, but under authism. Just my 0.02 cents. -- KimvdLinde 20:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If there is an appearance of undue weight in this article, it pales beside the complete lack of weighty research into the effects of thimerosal, for most of the last eighty years, ever since the bogus 'seminal' study. That single study was, oddly enough, the only 'research' ever cunducted to 'validate' the mistaken use of TCVs for decades upon decades, as autism cases skyrocketed in lock step with the vast increase in recommended additions to vaccination schedules. Now there exists a critical need for effective interventions that has been caused by the utter failure of the medical establishment to review its gross negligence with regard to the huge number of questions arising from the autism epidemic. Mendacity by omission has no place in science, much less an alternative medium like the Wiki. This RfC comes across as an epitome of double standards. Ombudsman 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The disagreement is not about mentioning it or not. I have conceded that this is potentially relevant, but I disagree with the very lengthy paragraph, including copious direct quotes and unsupported speculation, that Ombudsman seems to prefer. I have yet to receive an answer why the longer form is better than the shorter, more to-the-point form. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
RfC The placement of the gold salts as a reference to the autism treatment article is appropriate. A large number of Autism treatments have come and gone. The gold salt article is a reasonably likely destination for interested readers to come. Redirect to the appropriate article is good database design. Kd4ttc 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think perhaps we should think about how we organize the body of knowledge related to biomedical treatment of autism and related neurological disorders. Putting ourselves in the shoes of a reader interested in the topic, our foremost responsibility is to a) give them a complete sense of the various controversies, and b) help them organize their thoughts about it all.
The way I understand the argument, it's something like this: "if you accept the premise that autism is caused by mercury poisoning, then it is possible that gold salt treatment will alleviate the poisoning, since gold salts have an affinity for mercury."
The premise is disputed within Wikipedia and elsewhere, but it seems to that we should refer the reader to Thimerosal controversy for a full introduction and dispense with anything but the reference here. The issue that should be addressed here is a) whether it is reasonable to hypothesize that gold salts might help if there is indeed mercury poisoning; and b) whether the evidence supports, rejects, or leaves uncertain the hypothesis.
I think the current form is pretty good; I would add Halsey Boyd's word of caution, though. I think most people will understand that one case is anecdotal but certainly worth following up on. We shouldn't need to characterize it as one thing or another. -- Leifern 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I moved five of these links to the autism therapies article where they more appropriately belong. Andrew73 17:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it was your predictable edit comment that I labeled nonsensical, because you did not address my concern that the links dealt specifically with a use of gold salts that was not covered here.
The main body of the article was not dismantled, dear Ombudsman. The main body is still there, namely the material on the commonest clinical use of gold salts. Your version focused on a theoretical, experimental use propounded by a couple of people (Dan, Boyd and their buddies who think we live in an age of autism caused by thimerosal) vs the thousands of rheumatologists who occasionally resort to gold salts in RA, and certainly have done so for decades.
Anyway, we've been through this. Please stop seeing Wikipedia as a tool to advance your views/theories/dreams and start understanding the meaning of concensus. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Good links, to reasonably WP:RS publications, but do they actually add anything to the article, and if so, what, please?
+ Sheds light on how medicinal metal function against rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases', Harvard University Gazette (2006)
The Economist is very good at doing medciine for economists, and I like reading it on aircraft, but there are more primary references, and there already seem to be references listed for everything given there. Perhaps leaving them in the talk page for the assistance of anyone coming later would be better? Midgley 12:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
COuld be a heading in teh article... Midgley 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Gold intoxication - Chrysiasis -
http://coseinteressanti.altervista.org/gold_silver.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.92.154 ( talk) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
A quick glance suggests that the article is often not about gold salts but gold complexes. RS-Au-PR3 is not a salt for example. Maybe the term "salt" is jargon popularized by folk who are not very chemically attuned? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gold-containing drugs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The page is slightly redundant with gold treatment, although the material here is much better on sources. I have done some copyediting.
I removed the paragraph on autism. There are no systematic programs investigating the use of gold in detoxifying from thimerosal. All is based on isolated case reports (and some reporting by Dan Olmsted, of course, the autism journalist extraordinaire), and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Dan can be proud: gold salts work [1]. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the use of gold salts in autism as presented in the article is based mainly on anecdotal experiences and speculation. The I-had-one-patient-who-responded argument may work in the casual setting (or an infomercial for that matter), but I think we need to apply more rigor in Wikipedia. Andrew73 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Predictably, the "long version" of the autism material was reinserted. WP:NPOV speaks about undue weight ( WP:NPOVUW). I think that the rheumatoid arthritis use, numbering millions worthwide, should be given more prominence than the experiences of one controversional researcher on a handful of patients. When I copyedited the article I reduced the paragraph to:
This is all that can actually be said about this. The anecdotal report is many decades ago and has not been duplicated. I urge Ombudsman to adhere to policy. JFW | T@lk 08:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
All this is lecturing and opinion, and your tone is quite annoying; I am not "the medical authorities" and I do actually exhibit curiosity. Shortening your excessive material on autism is not a "sin of omission" but an attempt to restore balance.
I did not say that JRA is treated with gold; all I said was that millions of people have, through the years, been treated with gold. That cannot be said about autism. JFW | T@lk 12:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Ombudsman has reverted to his preferred version. I will not address the moralistic lecturing and the substantial WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL issues in his reply above. I have now requested RFC.
For non-medical readers: gold salts have been used for some forms of arthritis for decades, on 100,000s of patients worldwide. Last year a journalist with an interest in autism discovered that a young autism patient improved mentally when his coincidental arthritis was treated with gold salts. A researcher with an interest in mercury has suggested that it may work. Nobody has tried, and animal studies have only just started.
I think that the present (long) version of the autism paragraph constitutes "undue weight" and would like to hear the community's opinion on this. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I read the request for comments. I read the page, and it does strike me that the pice on authism is primarily ananecdotal, which sounds to me more as a POV than anything substantial (aka, sources needed to substantiate claim, if not, one sentence will do the whiole job of announcing that goldsalts maybe are benificual for authism). Furthermore, this is not something that should be listed under Gold salts, but under authism. Just my 0.02 cents. -- KimvdLinde 20:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
If there is an appearance of undue weight in this article, it pales beside the complete lack of weighty research into the effects of thimerosal, for most of the last eighty years, ever since the bogus 'seminal' study. That single study was, oddly enough, the only 'research' ever cunducted to 'validate' the mistaken use of TCVs for decades upon decades, as autism cases skyrocketed in lock step with the vast increase in recommended additions to vaccination schedules. Now there exists a critical need for effective interventions that has been caused by the utter failure of the medical establishment to review its gross negligence with regard to the huge number of questions arising from the autism epidemic. Mendacity by omission has no place in science, much less an alternative medium like the Wiki. This RfC comes across as an epitome of double standards. Ombudsman 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The disagreement is not about mentioning it or not. I have conceded that this is potentially relevant, but I disagree with the very lengthy paragraph, including copious direct quotes and unsupported speculation, that Ombudsman seems to prefer. I have yet to receive an answer why the longer form is better than the shorter, more to-the-point form. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
RfC The placement of the gold salts as a reference to the autism treatment article is appropriate. A large number of Autism treatments have come and gone. The gold salt article is a reasonably likely destination for interested readers to come. Redirect to the appropriate article is good database design. Kd4ttc 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I think perhaps we should think about how we organize the body of knowledge related to biomedical treatment of autism and related neurological disorders. Putting ourselves in the shoes of a reader interested in the topic, our foremost responsibility is to a) give them a complete sense of the various controversies, and b) help them organize their thoughts about it all.
The way I understand the argument, it's something like this: "if you accept the premise that autism is caused by mercury poisoning, then it is possible that gold salt treatment will alleviate the poisoning, since gold salts have an affinity for mercury."
The premise is disputed within Wikipedia and elsewhere, but it seems to that we should refer the reader to Thimerosal controversy for a full introduction and dispense with anything but the reference here. The issue that should be addressed here is a) whether it is reasonable to hypothesize that gold salts might help if there is indeed mercury poisoning; and b) whether the evidence supports, rejects, or leaves uncertain the hypothesis.
I think the current form is pretty good; I would add Halsey Boyd's word of caution, though. I think most people will understand that one case is anecdotal but certainly worth following up on. We shouldn't need to characterize it as one thing or another. -- Leifern 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I moved five of these links to the autism therapies article where they more appropriately belong. Andrew73 17:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it was your predictable edit comment that I labeled nonsensical, because you did not address my concern that the links dealt specifically with a use of gold salts that was not covered here.
The main body of the article was not dismantled, dear Ombudsman. The main body is still there, namely the material on the commonest clinical use of gold salts. Your version focused on a theoretical, experimental use propounded by a couple of people (Dan, Boyd and their buddies who think we live in an age of autism caused by thimerosal) vs the thousands of rheumatologists who occasionally resort to gold salts in RA, and certainly have done so for decades.
Anyway, we've been through this. Please stop seeing Wikipedia as a tool to advance your views/theories/dreams and start understanding the meaning of concensus. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Good links, to reasonably WP:RS publications, but do they actually add anything to the article, and if so, what, please?
+ Sheds light on how medicinal metal function against rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases', Harvard University Gazette (2006)
The Economist is very good at doing medciine for economists, and I like reading it on aircraft, but there are more primary references, and there already seem to be references listed for everything given there. Perhaps leaving them in the talk page for the assistance of anyone coming later would be better? Midgley 12:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
COuld be a heading in teh article... Midgley 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Gold intoxication - Chrysiasis -
http://coseinteressanti.altervista.org/gold_silver.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.92.154 ( talk) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
A quick glance suggests that the article is often not about gold salts but gold complexes. RS-Au-PR3 is not a salt for example. Maybe the term "salt" is jargon popularized by folk who are not very chemically attuned? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)